Closing arguments heard in witness tampering trial

EPHRATA — Jurors heard closing statements in the case of a Quincy attorney accused of witness tampering on Friday in Grant County Superior Court.

Mark Stansfield, 56, is charged with two counts of tampering with a witness. A previous count of obstruction of a law enforcement officer was dropped.

The charges involve a witness in the December 2006 Grant County District Court trial of Roger Hinshaw. The defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol, hit and run and negligent driving, said Washington state Assistant Attorney General John Hillman.

The prosecutor’s case rested on the testimony of Lona Richard, who claimed to be in the car with Hinshaw, Hillman said. Until November, Richard agreed to testify in Hinshaw’s trial, then in late November, Stansfield allegedly told Richard not to show up for trial.

“He tells Lona Richard to leave town, don’t come to court. She says, ‘But I got a subpoena.’ (she says,) ‘Don’t worry about it. Leave town. Go stay with your mom for few days. Don’t worry about it,’” Hillman said in court.

He said this constituted the first count of witness tampering.

On Dec. 1, 2006, Prosecutor Angus Lee, who was a deputy prosecutor at the time, called Richard again and she reportedly became “uncooperative,” Hillman said. This made Lee worry about whether she would come to court when the trial started three days later.

“Sure enough, the State v. Roger Hinshaw is called for trial here in this courthouse and Lona Richard is not present. That’s because she’s out past Seattle out in Federal Way staying at her mom’s as (Stansfield) had asked her to do,” Hillman said in court.

When Richard didn’t show for trial, Lee received a material witness warrant.

“He does that because he wanted to call her, as he always has, and needs to get her into court because he’s got a burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Roger Hinshaw was driving that car, and Lona Richard can help him do that,” Hillman said in court.

Once Lee received the material witness warrant, he told the judge and Stansfield about it on the morning of Dec. 5, 2006. When Stansfield heard this, he was allegedly concerned about it.

“His whole point in asking her to leave in the first place was so that she wouldn’t end up in court,” Hillman said in court. “He wants to either get a hold of Lona Richard before the police do, or make sure that she’s not at home.”

When Stansfield went back into court, he reportedly pulled out his cellphone and called Richard, first getting her son and then asking for Richard, Hillman said.

“At this point in time, the defendant realizes, ‘Hey there’s prosecutors standing here. This is not a good place for me to be on the phone tampering with a witness, where they can hear me.’ So he starts walking out of the courtroom,” Hillman said in court. “So he’s got Lona on the other end, so he tells her, ‘They have a material witness warrant for you. I think they’re on their way to come pick you up.’”

This was allegedly the second time Stansfield tampered with a witness, Hillman said.

Hillman said the prosecutors followed Stansfield out of the courtroom, enlisting the aid of a police officer who was waiting outside.

“As he’s fleeing about through the courthouse, he’s on this phone call with Lona Richard and you’ll see the cellphone records. It was a three minute phone call,” Hillman said. “Before (Stansfield) hangs up you heard Lona Richard testify that he asks her, ‘Why are you in town? You were supposed to stay out of town.’”

While Ephrata police were called to file a report, nothing happened until a year later, when Lee talked with Richard when she was in court for an unrelated matter. This is when she allegedly told Lee about Stansfield’s actions, Hillman said.

John Henry Browne, Stansfield’s attorney, said most of what Hillman presented was what defense lawyers have to do, saying Hillman added a sinister meaning to it.

“Ninety percent of what Mr. Hillman said is what all defense lawyers are required to do. What we are required to do by our code of ethics and by the Constitution of the United States is to zealously defend our clients,” Browne said in court. “As good defense lawyer, and I would like to think I am most of the time, you talk to witnesses. You have to talk to witnesses.”

Browne equated this case to the play “The Children’s Hour”, where two school teachers are accused of being lesbians and lose their jobs because everything they do becomes tainted by it.

“It’s about a little vicious person, making up a rumor in this small town … as a result of that one little vicious person, and I think in this case we have a little vicious person, I think you know who I’m talking about, but as a result of that one little vicious person, this whole rumor started through this whole community and the teachers were fired,” Browne said in court.

He said the play ends with the women talking and wondering what they could do.

“It’s like trying to prove you’re not a witch.”

Browne said this is similar to what is happening to Stansfield.

“Mr. Hillman has taken things that we as defense lawyers have to do and turned them into something sinister in his well-ordered presentation,” Browne said in court.

Stansfield wouldn’t put his career on the line for a driving under the influence case, Browne said, adding he believes his client is telling the truth.

“Every defendant is biased. There’s no way around it. Mr. Stansfield’s life and career are on the line. He is biased, but wouldn’t anybody be? Wouldn’t any innocent defendant be in that situation?” Browne said in court. “It’s like trying to prove he’s not a witch because he did his job. Mr. Hillman is trying to hold against him.”

He added any time a defense lawyer calls a witness, the lawyer could be accused of tampering with the witness.

“We’re even more required to do that in a case where a person has given conflicting information,” Browne said.

This allegedly occurred in the Hinshaw case, where Richard told the police, first she didn’t know who was driving the car, and then said she thought Hinshaw was driving the car, Browne said.

“You can’t rely on what, in particular in this case, on what Lona Richard was going to say. Mr. Stansfield endorsed her as a witness. At one point, Mr. Stansfield thought she was going to come to trial and say, ‘Roger wasn’t driving,’” Browne said.

Stansfield’s attorney pointed out the officer, who followed Stansfield on the second day of the Hinshaw trial, heard Stansfield tell Richard, “That’s your call.”

“That’s the case right there, ladies and gentlemen, as far as that count is concerned. Nobody heard Mr. Stansfield say, ‘Don’t come to court,’” Browne said in court. “It’s ridiculous. It’s absolutely ridiculous. That (Hillman) could go through all of that and not put that up on the board.”

Browne questioned Richard’s, Lee’s and Chow’s credibility, asking the jury if they would make a life-changing decision based on their testimony. He said Richard felt her fate was in the hands of the prosecutor’s office and she felt there was allegedly a deal made to drop charges from a different case.

He pointed out the only person, who said Stansfield told Richard not to come to court, was Richard.

“Lona Richard, one has bias, one has motive, two has memory problems,” Browne said in court. “You have to believe Lona Richard beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict Mr. Stansfield. Now Mr. Hillman is going to get up here and say, ‘Look at all the circumstantial evidence.’ … ‘We know he called her.’ That’s what defense lawyers do. ‘We know he called her after the material witness warrant was issued.’ That’s what defense lawyers do.”